On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:41, Leo Sutic wrote: > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > And this is where I disagree - not having remove requires the client > > > to know about implementation details such as whether a component > > > is thread safe or not, whether it is pooled or not. > > > > no it doesn't. It implies that the container has to manage resource > > allocation and deallocation. > > It also implies that CM == container (as it does not expose any method for > releasing resources) && all requests come in through the CM (otherwise > it can not know when a request starts/ends), which is not true.
Thats not the conclusion I would draw - espcially considering all the architectures that I have developed separate the notion of CM and kernel/container (see Phoenix for an example) and those that do support pooling do it transparently to the user - without the user even knowing that a certain resource is poolable. -- Cheers, Pete "Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions." -Oliver Wendell Holmes -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
